Dear Hadush Meresa and co-authors,

Thank you for responding to the reports of the three referees. Overall, the reviews are generally positive but have some critical comments regarding the presented study and suggestions on how to improve the manuscript. The three reviewers concurred on certain points (e.g. the unnecessary use of “risk” in terminology, the need for better explaining and discussing uncertainties arising from the model structure). I am confident that revising the paper in response to the reviewers' comments will result in a better version of the manuscript. Reading this paper, I find it to be an interesting paper that may fit the scope of HESS, as well as being of interest to the hydrological community. Therefore, I invite you to upload a revised manuscript, incorporating the proposed changes and additions, and making any other modifications where you see fit. In your response, please provide a point-to-point answer to the comments made by the reviews, and a track-changed version of the manuscript. I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,
Nadav Peleg

Dear Hadush Meresa,

I have received the reports from two referees. You are kindly requested to revise the manuscript again according to their comments (minor revisions needed). Along with the revised manuscript, please provide point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments.

Sincerely,
Nadav Peleg

Dear Hadush Meresa and co-authors,

Thank you for revising your manuscript once again. After reading the revised text, I am happy to accept the paper for publication in HESS. Thank you for contributing to the journal and congrats.

Sincerely,
Nadav Peleg